Many Jews become fearful or enraged when anyone criticizes even one single Jew. From a collectivist viewpoint, many Jews see this as a possible attack on all Jews and mobilize to resist it. Laurent Guyenot in his book From Yahwey to Zion explains the ancient roots of this collective behavior:

When a Jew is a victim, the Jewish people as a whole is victimized. … Jewishness is in some sense a latent sentiment capable of being activated by the slightest alarm. …

Any aggression against a Jew awakens in him, and among the other members of his community, the trauma of the holocaust. Any anti-Semite, Judeophobic or simply Judeo-critical speech brings to mind the fear of ‘the darkest hours’ in history. Any injustice against a Jew is a little Auschwitz. Every Jew killed is a potential genocide; whoever kills a Jew kills the Jewish people.

This is a slippery slope argument with a vengeance.

So often, the one single Jew who is criticized claims victimhood to the evil of ‘anti-Semitism’, trying to rally collective Jewish appeal on his side. A good example was Leo Frank in the rape and murder of thirteen-year-old victim Mary Phagan in Atlanta in 1913. Frank claimed ‘anti-Semitism’ as the reason he was accused, and so enormous was the outpouring of Jewish support from around the nation that the equivalent of millions of dollars poured into his legal defense from wealthy Jews. So vigorous was the collective Jewish defense of this ultimately convicted (and executed by lynching) child rapist and murderer that it saw the founding of the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL went on to defend many other Jewish criminals including notorious Jewish mobsters and to counter-defame their critics. It would be a wonder if any other racial or religious group did anything but denounce and disown such a convicted criminal as Frank.

Another example was the ‘most infamous and hated (Jewish) Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky. He owned and operated a media empire that promoted government officials including President Yeltsin, worked various schemes to acquire enormous wealth, and got himself on the state Security Council while also claiming Israeli citizenship. When Putin came to the presidency in the late 90s—partly with support from Berezovsky—he confronted the oligarch with evidence of fraud and corruption, and Berezovsky was forced to sell his TV station and flee the country. Putin brought pressure against at least five other Jewish oligarchs, and although there were cries of “anti-Semitism,” most of the Russian people were delighted. Putin defrayed the accusations by promoting another Jewish sect, Chabad Lubavitch, ostensibly using it to soothe concerns of anti-Semitism. Berezovsky’s and the Jewish oligarchs’ appeal of anti-Semitism failed to generate much Jewish support, since “In Russia, everyone is aware of the Jewish identity of these men, and the acts of the Jewish oligarchs themselves have done quite a bit to increase anti-Jewish feelings there. The oligarchs themselves recognize this, as do many Russian Jews, who blame the oligarchs for giving Jews a bad name’. It certainly failed to deter the new Russian President Putin. ‘Some Jews in Russia view this [Putin’s crackdown] as a good thing, … and believe this will reduce anti-Jewish feelings in Russian society.”

So not all Jews rally to protect Jewish criminals, and some even openly denounce them. Whether this is purely in self-interest, to deflect ‘anti-Semitism’ from relatively innocent Jews, or genuine moral appeals, it remains a fact that Jews do not always act collectively.

It was most likely self-interest that compelled German Jews in 1933 to issue statements to the world, most direcled to the ‘International Jews’, declaring that they did not approve of the international Jewish boycott of National Socialist German goods. German Jews had decent prospects in the new National Socialist economic revival that was coming so long as they behaved, and they did not want International Jews inciting resentment and hate against them. The main instigator of the boycott in America was the Jew Samuel Untermeyer, and the holy economic Jewish war against Germany was announced in the London Daily Express newspaper on March 24, 1933. On that same day the National Socialist party had won the greater than two thirds majority (82.44%) vote of the German Parliament to pass the Law of Plenary Powers (Enabling Act) that gave the party full leadership of the country.

(It turns out the International Jews were deliberately pursuing a strategy of inciting ‘anti-Semitism’ against Germany’s Jews in order to defame Germany on the world stage, of which the boycott was only one tactic among others such as assassination of National Socialist officials, publishing of books calling for German racial extermination and cedeing of the country to neighboring states, and others, a topic for another essay.)

Could genuine moral concerns have been a reason many Jews around the world did not favor the creation of the Israeli state (see esp. Jewish Criticism of Zionism), and prior efforts to prepare for it? It certainly appears to be one reason. Some Jews felt that because Palestine already had large Arab, Muslim and Christian populations, the incursion of more Jews would cause conflict. While this could bring harm to Jewish newcomers, some Jews felt it would also harm the local established peoples, and this they criticized on moral grounds, notwithstanding the appeal of ‘the Promised Land’ for the ‘Chosen people’, and the slogan ‘A land without a people, for a people without land’ concocted by Ultra-Zionist Jew Israel Zangwill, who also created the ‘Melting Pot’ theory for the US. The other reasons appear to be mainly self-interest, mainly concern that diaspora Jews would be charged with disloyalty, and religious belief among True Torah Jews that only the Jewish Messiah could lead the ‘chosen people’ back to their ‘promised land’.

Jewish self-interest likely prevented their power elite from promoting the holocaust in America until 1967. This delay was motivated by caution on the part of  Jews not wanting to risk pressuring the American public and WASP power structure with a grand campaign of Jewish victimhood and Goyish guilt. The organized Jewish community felt more confident of its power in America after Israel’s victory in the Six Day War, and began the campaign to promote the holocaust earnest throughout the country at the same time America took over from Britain and France in supplying Israel’s security. While this example may not technically qualify as one of Not All Jews!—the strategy was simply delayed—it bears mentioning as a demonstration of hesitancy within the Jews’ own power cabal.

An excellent example of Not All Jews! involved the participation of about 150,000 at least half-Jews (mischling) in the National Socialist armies fighting Communism, including dozens of officers and some fully Jewish generals. Chancellor Hitler himself personally reviewed thousands of cases and signed exemptions to the Nuremberg Laws that allowed partial Jews  to remain in or join the Wehrmacht. Bryan Mark Riggs’ Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers calls the National Socialists ‘obsessed … with racial policy’, but it just as readily shows a willingness to be flexible, as mischlings themselves were. Riggs closes his introduction with the summation that his ‘study shows just how flawed, dishonest, corrupt, bankrupt and tragic were the racial theories and policies of Hitler and the Nazis’, but again it could just as easily show they were far more flexible in their racial views than even the current ongoing war propaganda imposes. Combined with Hitler’s concept of the ‘Noble Jew’, which he applied to his parents’ Jewish physician, it is likely at least some of these Jewish soldiers enthusiastically fought for Germany and the Third Reich.

A contemporary example is present-day Breaking the Silence, former Israeli Defense Force members who expose the atrocities they and other IDF soldiers committed against Palestinians.

I will leave out such groups as Jewish Voice for Peace, and Noam Chomsky and his followers, unsure at this time if they are little more than controlled opposition. It remains to be seen if the Jews joining the Alternative for Germany Party in its counter-Islamic efforts are sincere, or attempting controlled oppositon and/or internal subversion.

But yes, to be fair: Not All Jews!

The second part of this essay will focus on individual Jews who exemplify not just refusal to participate in Jewish evil and corruption, but actively defy it.
The best of these must be Benjamin Freedman. He converted from Judaism to Catholicism, prior to which he had a career of high-level power, acting as the liason between the Senate Finance Committee (Chair, Henry Morgenthau Sr. [Jewish]) and the Secretary of the Treasury during the Wilson Administration, attending both the Treaty of Versailles and Nuremberg Trials, and associating with other high-level people and events. Freedman spent the last part of his long life expending his substantial fortune from private enterprise in trying to expose the world-conquering Jewish Cabal whose schemes he had become aware of in his career in the halls of power. His iconic speech at the Willard Hotel in 1961, detailing the manipulations of this Judeo-Masonic Cabal, has become a classic reference for those today who understand this primarily Jewish Supremacist world control agenda.

Gilad Atzmon is another former Jew, a former Isaeli citizen who once served in the IDF, and later renounced his Jewishness. He claims he did not feel right benefitting from Jewish ‘chosenness’ and in-group privilege, and could not condone his participation in collective Jewish immorality, particularly with regard to Israel. Atzman openly denounces the hypocrisies, depravity and power lust corruption of the Jewish state of Israel and the international Jewish people generally because of their power on behalf of Israel. His analysis of Jewish group behavior comes from one who knows by experience, and like Freedman, his message is one of warning.

Paul Eisen is a ‘self-identifying Jew’ who appears to be vigorously exposing and denouncing Jewish power. He has been characterized as a ‘self-hating Jew’ for such writings as Speaking the Truth to Jews, Jewish Power and My Life as a Holocaust Denier, and other writing and speaking on The Jewish Question, including his association with Deir Yassin Remembered. For this, especially ‘holocaust denial’, Eisen has lost friendships, professional colleagues, board positions, and speaking events, suffered public defamation, and endured the hard feelings of his own family members.

Most likely the foremost Jew presenting legitimate ‘anti-Semitism’ today is Ron Unz. He says he ‘grew up in a Yiddish speaking household’, and has gone on to become a successful millionaire tech entrepreneur. He is the editor/publisher of the Unz Review, an online journal that has surpassed the iconic Nation magazine in popularity, due in no small part to the writing of Unz himself in his “American Pravda” series. These long essays explore the Jewish Question in depth, identifying some (Not All!) Jews involved in the events of 911, the JFK assassination, the Leo Frank case, and many others. These are surely inquiries Not All Jews!, but for some reason Unz has escaped the harsh consequences others suffer, and he continues to expose the Jewish Cabal. He says this is because they do not want to draw more attention to his writings by confronting him, but one wonders.

Brother Nathaniel is another former Jew who converted to Christian Orthodoxy on moral grounds. Like Freedman and Atzmon, he brings a warning from one who was once on the inside. The huge volumes of knowledge and opinion on his Real Jew News speaks for itself.

Here we must exclude such Jews as Harold Rosenthal, who while as assistant to Senator Jacob Javitz of NY exposed Jewish power, bragging about it to journalist Walter White without approval; he soon died under mysterious circumstances. Also, contemporary critic of certain Israeli Jews Max Blumenthal may be omitted as potentially controlled opposition, denouncing Israel and Zionism but not addressing the world-wide Jewish Cabal.

Even—perhaps especially—National Socialist Germany was Not All Jews! Adolf Hitler’s own personal chauffeur and body guard was Emile Maurice, a part Jew who fought for right on the side of National Socialism against Communism. Maurice was one of the earliest National Socialist members who fought at the forefront of tavern brawls and street fights against Communists, to ensure Hitler and other National Socialist leaders were able to address the gatherings they organized. Maurice went on to found and serve in the SS and held various positions as a National Socialist official. Maurice debunks the myth that Hitler hated all Jews and systematically sought their extermination. In fact, Hitler spoke on record of ‘the Noble Jew’ (his family’s physician Eduard_Bloch). Other National Socialist leaders including Heinrich Himmler appealed to Hitler to replace Maurice as chauffer and body guard with a full Aryan, but Hitler refused. He designated Maurice an ‘honorary Aryan’. Some accounts claim Maurice was only 1/8 Jewish from a paternal grandfather, and thus not considered Jewish under the Nuremberg Laws of the day, making this a mild example but for Maurice’s close personal connection to the Fuhrer.

While National Socialist Germans had legitimate reasons to hate Jews in general (Not All!), they allowed many at least half-Jews or Germans-married-to-Jews to become officers in the Wehrmacht. Major Robert Borchardt, who was half-Jewish, received the Knights Cross for his fighting against the Soviets. Near the end of his life in 1983 he is reported to have said ‘Many German Jews and half-Jews who fought in the First World War and even in the Second World War believed that they should honour their fatherland by serving in the military.’ Erhard Milch, also half-Jewish, achieved the rank of Field Marshall in the Luftewaffe. Other high-ranking National Socialist military men were half-Jewish; seventy-seven in all were identified by the German government. This is most often framed as Jews desperate to escape persecution by showing loyalty, but we must consider that at least some Jews thought of Germany as a beloved fatherland and loved their Fuhrer—and hated Communism—as much as most Germans.

Some of these Jews or former Jews cannot be said to be acting in self-interest, since they have been defamed, harrassed and attacked by other Jews and many Gentiles. Such ‘Noble Jews’ are reflexively denounced as ‘self-hating Jews’ by other Jews; they are ostracized from the otherwise tight Jewish community.
They find a new home among welcoming Gentiles who discover they love ‘self-hating Jews’ above all. The growing counter-semitic movement world-wide would do well to welcome increasing numbers of  Jews who expose and denounce the designs of the organized Jewish community. It would be ideal if more of the world’s Jews should come forward to denounce and counter its power. It would likely be a game-changer.

Because Not All Jews!

(Disclaimer: This essay should in no way be understood to promote ‘Noble Jews’ who expose and denounce the Jewish Supremacist Cabal as better in any way than Gentiles who do the same.)

“From my conversations with many of these Buddhist leaders, they have spoken openly about how their commitments to social justice are shaped by their Jewish upbringings.”
Emily Sigalow, American JewBu: Jews, Buddhists, and Religious Change, 2019.

As mentioned in a 2017 review of The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (2010) by Boston College’s Robert Aleksander Maryks, I am especially fascinated by aspects of Jewish group behavior that involve crypsis, a phenomenon that is often facilitated by a combination of deception and self-deception on the part of Jews. To date, the most forthright and convincing theoretical framework for understanding cryptic forms of Judaism is found in Kevin MacDonald’s groundbreaking Separation and Its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. A substantial portion of the fourth chapter of the text (1998/2004: 121–132) is devoted to ‘Reactive Racism in the Period of the Iberian Inquisitions.’ Here MacDonald puts forth the view that the blood purity struggles of the Spanish Inquisition during the 15th and 16th centuries should be seen as “an authoritarian, collectivist, and exclusionary movement that resulted from resource and reproductive competition with Jews, and particularly crypto-Jews posing as Christians.” The historical context lies predominantly in the forced conversion of Jews in Spain in 1391, after which these ‘New Christians’ or conversos assumed (or indeed retained) a dominance in the areas of law, finance, diplomacy, public administration, and a wide range of economic activities. MacDonald argues that despite superficial religious conversions, the New Christians “must be considered a historical Jewish group” that acted in such a way as to continue the advance of its ethnic interests. An integral aspect of this was that Wealthy New Christians purchased and endowed ecclesiastical benefices for their children, with the result that many prelates were of Jewish descent.” Much of MacDonald’s theoretical framework is borne out in Maryks’s text, which convincingly demonstrates that ethnically Jewish involvement in the early Society of Jesus followed the same pattern of ethnic nepotism and religious insincerity.

Jewish crypsis in Christianity never really ceased, and the story of Jewish involvement in Vatican II, and even the contemporary activities of even minor figures like Jewish Church of England minister Giles Fraser, has deservedly been the source of much discussion in our circles. For the last couple of years, however, I’ve been intrigued by the idea that multiculturalism would present Jews with a proliferation of identities through which the cryptic pursuit of Jewish interests could be pursued, and non-Christian religious identities, other than Judaism itself, are no exception. Then, beginning with my chance discovery of a series of “anti-racist” “Whiteness seminars” offered by a series of American Buddhist organizations, and especially my investigation of the background of Buddhists for Racial Justice (BRJ), I began to unravel precisely what I had previously only theorized — a massive Jewish presence in a non-Christian religion which had been adapted to serve Jewish interests via crypsis. My investigations would providentially coincide with the November 2019 publication, by Princeton University Press, of Emily Sigalow’s American JewBu: Jews, Buddhists, and Religious Change. The remarkable findings of Sigalow’s text, together with some of my own observations, are presented in the following essay.

The Jew in the Lotus 

If I told you I’d been reading the teachings of Ram Dass, Puma Chodron, Krishna Das, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Surya Das, Zen Master Bon Seong, Thubten Chodron, and Zen Master Wu Kwang, it would probably bring to mind images of bald Tibetans, bearded Hindus, and inscrutable East Asians. Your mind would drift to exotic destinations, and dimly lit temples, far from the hustle and bustle of the American city. Such is the magic of names, and changing one’s name really can be a form of intellectual and social sleight of hand. Just ask the real individuals behind these names — Richard Alpert, Deirdre Blomfield-Brown, Jeffrey Kagel, Jeffrey Block, Jeffrey Miller, Jeff Kitzes, Cheryl Greene, and Richard Shrobe — urban leftist Jews who reinvented themselves as the founders and leading sages of American Buddhism. These figures are just part of a story that began when, in Chicago in 1893, Charles T. Strauss, a Jewish hat maker, became the first non-Asian person in the United States to convert to Buddhism. Today, it is conservatively estimated that around 30 percent of non-Asian Buddhists in America are ethnically Jewish, and many of these are in leadership positions over the remaining 70%, composed mainly of Americans of European descent.^[1]

Despite a small number of early converts like Strauss, the Jewish movement into Buddhism took on significance for the first time in the late 1950s, when it gained popularity in countercultural leftism. The influx began some time around the advent of the Beats, where one of the pioneering figures was the (non-Jewish) poet Gary Snyder. Snyder, whose later writings on nature I greatly admire, had worked a series of jobs in forestry and had a deep passion for ecology and the environment, factors that drew him to some of the Far East’s traditional attitudes toward nature, especially those of Zen Buddhism. It was Snyder who introduced Zen Buddhism to Jack Kerouac (who would later immortalize the encounter in his 1958 novel The Dharma Bums) and to Allen Ginsberg. Snyder’s Zen Buddhism was spartan, intellectual, and accompanied by a conviction that man needed to return to nature, facets that Kerouac and Ginsberg found intolerable. Both Kerouac and Ginsberg, however, spun off in different directions, finding forms of Buddhism they found more amenable to their personality types. For the degenerate homosexual Ginsberg, he found what he was looking for in Chögyam Trungpa, an alcoholic and sexually licentious Tibetan monk whose doctrine of “Crazy Wisdom” promoted “flamboyant disregard for conventional behavior.” This style of Buddhism, later laced with LSD culture, would later proliferate in the leftist counterculture.

By the 1960s, strands of Buddhism perceived as permissive, or at least morally non-judgmental, were becoming increasingly popular on the countercultural Left, where the disruption of conventional behavior was the established modus operandi. Jews, disproportionately represented in this area of socio-political life, began to drift to Buddhism in significant numbers. The reasons for this drift have been debated in scholarship and media for decades (e.g. see here, here, and here). The most prominent of suggested reasons is that these Jewish converts are dissatisfied or unfulfilled with the spiritual aspects of Judaism but are resolutely hostile towards, or suspicious of, Christianity, which is seen by many Jews as the fons et origo of anti-Semitism. Sigalow, for example, quotes one young female American “JewBu” as saying, “Christianity in particular just gives me the heebie-jeebies.”^[2] Another, in his late 60s, told Sigalow:

It’s hard for me to sit in a Buddhist meditation group in a Unitarian Universalist church. … Even though I appreciate it, and its philosophy is that all religions are fundamentally at some level the same, the word ‘church’ has been contaminated for me [from my Jewish upbringing].^[3]

There’s a grain of truth in such interpretations. As will be demonstrated below, many of these Jews clearly, on some level, find the religious forms of Judaism insufficient, even if they obviously prize their Jewishness in other ways. There’s also a lot of truth in the idea that Jews are likely to be extremely averse to conversion to Christianity, a stance derived primarily from very anti-Christian self-understandings in Judaism which posit Christianity as pathological and negatively obsessed with Jews. It really goes without saying that whereas all religions look negatively on apostasy, Jewish to Christian conversion ranks as especially noxious among Jews, with simple atheism likely to be held in much higher regard within the group. But these are really only “push” factors that don’t really explore the pull of Buddhism. Here I posit the lack of doctrine and dogma in certain strands of Buddhism, and a lack of pressure to express certain beliefs, a fact which has enabled Jews to superficially adopt an entirely new religious and cultural identity without compromising ethnic relationships or even some of the fundamental principles of Judaism. Allen Ginsberg, for example, was not the last individual to describe himself as “both a Jew and a Buddhist.”^[4] Crucially, Buddhism in 1950s and 1960s America was something very new; it could be steered, shaped, and directed in its infancy. Jews thus had a chance to fashion a new religion in their image. Indeed, one of the most remarkable aspects of Sigalow’s work is not just that it demonstrates how little Jews adapted to Buddhism, but how much they adapted it to their own identity.

Jewish Buddhist Activism

Sigalow remarks that not only have Jews “emerged as prominent teachers and leaders,”^[5] in Zen, Insight Meditation, and Tibetan Buddhism, but that they have uniquely imbued American Buddhism with an “activist ethic”^[6] that it has lacked elsewhere and at any time previous. Writing in The Tablet, Michelle Goldberg concedes that American Buddhism is a essentially Jewish creation that is “unlike anything seen in traditional Buddhism.” It’s interesting that non-Jewish contemporary Buddhists have noted, and argued against, a strong tendency towards “social justice” in American Buddhism. Brad Warner, a White Buddhist who trained in a Zen monastery in Japan, has observed in a number of blogs and YouTube videos (e.g. see here, here, and here) that whereas traditional Buddhism has insisted that there is no hierarchy in suffering (all people suffer, all races suffer, and none more so than others), modern American Buddhism is obsessed with liberal-left politics, social justice activism, and a negative preoccupation with White demography. Warner has also pointed out that while Buddhism encourages a focus on the present, and a letting go of the past, modern American Buddhism is bogged down in discussions of putative historical racial injustices that include trips to Auschwitz posturing as Zen meditation retreats to reflect on how we “should seek and welcome diversity.” Predictably, Warner has since been accused of being a Trump supporter (which he most definitely is not) and a neo-Nazi (which he most definitely is not).

The reason for the discrepancy between Warner’s Buddhism and that of most American Buddhists is that Warner was trained by spartan Japanese Buddhists and not, as is the case for most American Buddhists, by Jewish intellectual activists. Sigalow writes that many of the ethnically Jewish leaders and teachers of American Buddhism possessed “deep relationships with Judaism” and “brought ideas and concepts drawn from Judaism into Buddhism.”^[7] Jews have been able to direct American Buddhism because they accumulated rapidly in its ranks during its first popularization in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and Jewish ethnic cliques were subsequently behind the foundation of most of the organizational structure of American Buddhism thereafter. Founded in 1975, the Insight Meditation Society, supposedly rooted in the Theravada tradition of Buddhism, is one of the largest independent centers for the study of Buddhism in America. Its founders were Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, and Joseph Goldstein. Shambhala Publications, the foremost publishing house for American Buddhism, was founded by Samuel Bercholz.

“Buddhist” Gurus: Sharon Salzberg and Joseph Goldstein

Another highly influential group, the Zen Community of New York, now known as Zen Peacemakers, was established in 1980 by Bernard Glassman. Glassman’s group is the most prominent proponent of Auschwitz tours for American Buddhists, and his website description of these ventures is quite something:

We’ll once again feel the razor wire fences of imprisonment, gather in barracks that once squeezed humans tighter than cattle, and pray by those deep rectangles in the ground that killed people because they were different on account of religion, country, ethnicity, and sexual preference. Or just because. Because we continue to have scapegoats, someone to blame, rather than accept the complex responsibility of living fully as human beings. … In Poland it is illegal to talk of Polish complicity in the murder of Jews in Poland. Democracy and diversity have become dirty words. Sectarianism and bigotry have reared their ugly heads, stoking fear of immigrants, refugees, poor families, and ethnic and religious minorities. … Today we witness the intersectionality of discrimination — individuals and groups are marginalized for being of a certain color, and of certain sexual orientation, and of certain class, and of certain religion, in complex and overlapping ways … What does diversity mean to you? Are we all in this together, or are a privileged few inside and everyone else out? Who is included, and who is excluded? Now more than ever it is crucial to bear witness to the results of xenophobia and bigotry. The 2020 retreat at Auschwitz-Birkenau will not only bear witness to the killing and torture of Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and Polish intellectuals and journalists, to a time when a non-Aryan life was deemed a worthless life. … We seek and welcome this diversity especially now, … How do we build bridges and alliances instead of walls?

If this description strikes you as utterly devoid of Buddhist content—stripped bare of even the slightest relationship to the austere, reflective Zen of the Far East and something that could have been written by an ADL operative, you aren’t alone. But this is, after all, the new “American Buddhism,” and it has an overwhelmingly Hebrew flavor. After all, California’s Spirit Rock Meditation Center was also founded by Jack Kornfield, with the assistance of fellow “Buddhist” Sylvia Boorstein. Today its key teaching staff include leading American “Buddhists” like Howard Cohn, Will Kabat-Zinn, Wes Nisker, and Donald Rothberg. Most, if not all, of the country’s largest Zen Buddhist and meditation centers, including Empty Gate Zen Center (Jeff Kitzes), the Nashville Mindfulness Center (Skip Ewing), Chogye International Zen Center (Richard Shrobe), and San Francisco Zen Center (David Zimmerman), are directed by Jews, while Jews continue to dominate most mass-appeal aspects of modern American Buddhism, especially its literary scene. All of this is a mere reflection of the Jewish takeover of early American Buddhism in the 1960s, a massive presence that prompted Chogyam Trungpa, Ginsberg’s guru, to remark in astonishment at the number of Jews among his students that they would start the “oy vey school of Buddhism.”

Analyzing the “JewBu” phenomenon from the perspective of crypsis, it is extremely interesting that there is a high level of ethnic cohesion and cooperation among Jewish converts to Buddhism. The vast majority of these individuals worked alongside each other to create the infrastructure of American Buddhism, and also married Jews. Many continued to espouse Jewish, or quasi-Jewish religious identities. Glassman, for example, employed “rabbinical tales in his dharma teachings,” as well as leading his “Buddhist retreats” to Auschwitz.^[8] Gary Laderman, meanwhile, has commented that Sylvia Boorstein “describes herself both as a faithful Jew and a practicing Buddhist. … Her books have focussed on synthesising Buddhism, Judaism, and psychotherapy.”^[9] Sigalow remarks that Goldstein and Kornfield were “exceedingly creative and innovative in their teachings,”^[10] which is elsewhere explained as meaning that they ultimately “reconfigured Buddhism”^[11] to suit their own pre-existing cultural, religious, and political tastes. It’s been argued that Jews engaged in a “doctrinal reorganization”^[12] of Buddhism which essentially involved removing elements that made Buddhism particularistic, monarchical, patriarchal, or spiritually troubling to Judaism. For example, Sigalow comments that Jewish teachers have basically “muted” any “dogmatic, doctrinal, and mythological elements of Buddhism,” and cycles of reincarnation are “virtually absent in the teachings of Jewish Buddhist teachers.” Rather than embracing Buddhism, these Jews have in fact “largely abandoned” key doctrines seen as “integral” to Tibetan Buddhism.^[13]

Of equal interest to the aspects removed from Buddhism by Jewish converts are those elements that Jewish converts have added to it. Sigalow points out that Jews have imbued Buddhism with “psychological and psychotherapeutic qualities” that were previously unheard of, while Michelle Goldberg claims that Jews have been behind the “psychologization of Buddhism.” This has manifested in an unusual emphasis in JewBu teachings on “tolerance” or “loving-kindness.”^[14] Sigalow adds that the most profound Jewish influence was that

beginning in the 1960s, a new movement within Buddhism emerged that focussed on applying Buddhist insights to social issues confronting contemporary society. … From my conversations with many of these Buddhist leaders, they have spoken openly about how their commitments to social justice are shaped by their Jewish upbringings.^[15] 

These latter changes are particularly interesting because what we essentially witness is the redefinition of a religion that Jews co-opted, and the promotion by Jewish Buddhist conversos of a new quasi-Buddhism to White converts—Sigalow points out that Jews are almost entirely absent from Asian Buddhist communities—that involves intensive self-reflection, critical pseudo-analysis of Whiteness, very high levels of tolerance, pluralism, and pseudo-religious commands to fight for “racial justice.” Since Jews pioneered psychoanalysis and Whiteness Studies, and remain key proponents of racial pluralism, it’s difficult to avoid the possibility that Jewish involvement in Buddhism is at least in part a vehicle for the pursuit of the same Jewish interests but in more cryptic form. Buddhists for Racial Justice, for example, now known as North American Buddhist Alliance, is just one of the mechanisms for such activism in the United States, one of its key figures
being a bald female-to-male transexual called Joshua Goldberg.

The promotion of a kind of psycho-therapeutic form of Neo-Buddhism among Whites could also be seen as an extension of the efforts of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School to treat putative cultural pathologies among Whites by addressing largely imagined repressions and anxieties. It’s been claimed by The Tablet that Jews effectively created the modern “mindfulness” industry by stripping Buddhism of its mythological elements and radically increasing those elements of Buddhism that involve the cultivation of emotional passivity among adherents. In fact, American “JewBu” Buddhism is notable for its encouragement of tolerance and pluralism, as well as the neglect of one’s own individual interests. This runs counter to the facts of historical Asian Buddhism, which has seen authoritarian and war-like forms, and also to contemporary examples like the situation in Myanmar, where Buddhist monks have demonstrated their awareness of individual and group interests by leading violent attacks on Muslims and their property.

Literal Jewish Gurus

As “Buddhist” teachers and gurus, Jews can of course obtain very high levels of White convert obedience and commitment while obscuring the precise nature of their activities. Changes of name, common in conversions to Buddhism, further obscure links between the American “Buddhist” hierarchy, making Jewish ethnic nepotism, and Jewish dominance of the movement’s origins and leadership, less obvious. For example, a promotion by a Wu Kwang of a Surya Das will raise fewer eyebrows than a Joseph Goldstein promotion of a Joshua Goldberg. The end result is that Jews have been able to very rapidly obtain a large number of priest-like spiritual roles over Whites without any of the awkward hurdles in Christianity. Unlike the historical situation in the Catholic Church, Jews have been able to saturate leadership roles in Buddhism very quickly, without suspicions, without demanding studies and examinations of theology, and without making religious declarations that run counter to Judaism. Due to the decentralized nature of Buddhism and its reliance on a system of teaching “lineages” (spiritual authority is often passed down via “direct face-to-face Dharma transmission” between master and student) all Jews had to do was insert themselves into these lineages (under the right masters) at the right time (the “oy vey school” of the 1950s and 1960s) and they could direct the future of American Buddhism thereafter, both by establishing its infrastructure, by selecting its future co-ethnic gurus via “Dharma transmission” and by expelling dissenters from their anti-White activist agenda. Thus we see many stories like that of contemporary “Zen Master” Zoketsu Norman Fischer, who describes himself as a “Dharma heir” in the lineage of Sojun Mel Weitsman.

The White Buddhist convert scene has also been a rather putrid soil for cult-like behaviors and sexual misconduct and abuse. Even before Jews swamped early Western Buddhism, huge numbers of the early Asian gurus were involved in the sexual grooming of their White followers (e.g. see here, here, here, and here). Homosexuals have likewise used the White Buddhist convert scene for depraved purposes. Confirming a credo of mine that it’s never a good idea to permit non-Whites, gays, and Jews to possess any position of authority, one of the most recent scandals has involved “American Buddhist” Noah Levine. Levine is the son of Stephen Levine, a Jewish associate of Ram Dass (Jewish psychologist Richard Alpert), and part of the same coterie as Kornfield, Goldstein, and Salzberg. Noah Levine was taught “Buddhism” by Kornfield, and subsequently went on to found the Against the Stream Meditation Center in Venice, California, as a distinct “American Buddhist lineage.” Against the Stream, which describes itself as having been founded “on antisexist and antiracist principles” became known for its use of punk imagery, and it has played a significant role in the promotion of “woke” culture within American Buddhism via its
courses on Whiteness, White privilege, and racism.

Unfortunately for Levine, and despite his anti-sexism classes, allegations emerged in late 2019 that Levine had been sexually assaulting female followers, prompting the organization to expel him. Other Buddhist organizations have distanced themselves from him and revoked his teaching certifications. Enraged, Levine let the cat out of the bag when he complained that his father and colleagues “Kornfield, Ram Dass, Joseph Goldstein, Sharon Salzberg” were essentially frauds anyway and that “these guys had no authorization to teach, they just gave it to themselves.” Or to put it another way, they simply invented their own religion based on the promotion of passivity and the celebration of diversity, and called it Buddhism.

Conclusion

As someone profoundly influenced by the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, I have a natural sympathy for authentic Buddhism and its ancient teachings on suffering. It has also been remarked by many scholars that Zen Buddhism has very close parallels in the philosophies of both Nietzsche and Heidegger, with the result that there is definitely something in Buddhism that is accessible, and even useful, to the European mind and soul. That being said, the increasing drift of White Americans into Buddhism (see here, here, and here) should be viewed with alarm given the above discussion. American Buddhism is, to a very significant extent, an artificial contrivance of Jewish intellectuals designed to pacify Whites, promote multiculturalism, and otherwise advance political goals oppositional to White interests—literally the same goals of the activist Jewish community in America generally.

^[1] Sigalow, American JewBu: Jews, Buddhists, and Religious Change, 1.

^[2] Ibid., 159.

^[3] Ibid.

^[4] Ibid., 59.

^[5] Ibid., 57.

^[6] Ibid., 58.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Ibid., 76.

^[9] G. Laderman, Religion and American Cultures: Tradition, Diversity, and Popular Expression: 2nd Edition (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO), 57.

^[10] Sigalow, 76.

^[11] Ibid., 78.

^[12] Ibid., 69.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ibid., 70-71.

^[15] Ibid., 73 & 76.

The following text is the translation of two speeches given by General  Nick Z. Glasnovic in January 2020 in the Parliament of Croatia. Transl. by T. Sunic. General Glasnovic is an MP in the Croatian Parliament

Starting from the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, all the way to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988, communist regimes all over the world killed tens of millions of people. Those mass killings were carried out in the name of equality, democracy and tolerance. Most of those killed were victims of “self-genocide” given that they were mostly victims of their own countrymen. Such criminal communist insanity had been planned to the last detail. Wherever the communist cabal had come into power, i.e., from Mongolia to the Adriatic coast, the most vital part of the population had to be beheaded first.

In an effort to destroy the Christian tradition, communists had to remove the Church and the clergy. During the early communist revolutionary post-World War II fervor, religious leaders were often burned alive, or buried alive, or crucified alive. The Bolsheviks, in 1918, buried alive the Russian Christian Orthodox  Bishop Andronicus. In 1937, the  Russian theologian, mathematician and inventor, Pavel Florensky, after being subjected to torture, was executed by the Communist authorities. He was one of nameless 750,000 victims of the NKVD (Soviet secret police). He was shot in the neck at the height of the communist repression, later to be known as Stalin’s “Great Purge.” In addition to killing millions of people of various religious denominations (mostly Christians), more than 110,000 clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church were executed. Even the Red Army needed to be partially beheaded. Stalin executed several Soviet marshals, generals and tens of thousands of lower rank officers during the 1936–1937 purges. In 1931, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, which could accommodate up to 10,000 believers, was blown up by Stalin’s thugs. Books by foreign authors were burned or banned. In 1940, after Stalin had dismembered the Baltic states, literature in vernacular languages in those countries ​​was also banned.

Brainwashing was an integral part of all communist regimes, with psychiatric experiments on prisoners becoming a daily routine. Politically incorrect thinkers were confined to psychiatric wards where they were drugged, tortured and questioned. The Soviet NKVD and, later on, their smaller post-World War II copycat East European outlets shortly after they were established began to experiment with nerve poison, a method used later to “neutralize” political opponents, both at home and abroad. Prisoners were killed by mustard gas, ricin and digitoxin. After years of imprisonment, the Archbishop of the Ukrainian Church Theodore George Romzha was killed by a curare injection.

Nor did communism spare scientists, especially those who had obtained some prominence in the fields of genetics and forensics. The biologist Nikolai Koltsov, a Russian pioneer of modern genetics, became a victim of communist poisoning in 1940. On the same day, his wife committed suicide. Many Soviet pseudo-scientists, including a famed hoaxer Trofim Lysenko, who had rejected Mendel’s laws of heredity, succeeded in setting back for decades all efforts in genetic research in Russia.  Some modalities of the Lysenko’s quackery can be observed today among many Antifa and LGTB outlets who claim that gender and race are a matter of free choice and are not influenced by heredity.

In the early days of the communist experiment, the method of weaponizing food against their own people was also widespread, as was observed on the massive scale during the great famine in Ukraine in the 1930s. The mandatory communist slogan in the early 1950s, enforced all over communized Eastern Europe, went something like this:  “We shall grow wheat from the heavens so that hungry America and England can see it.” In order to suppress the revolt in May 1950 in the Cazin region of what is today a small slice of northwestern  Bosnia, the Yugoslav communist strongman Josip B. Tito, sent units of the Yugoslav National Army to quell the rebellion of starved peasants.

The Memory Hole

Victims of the Communist mass terror don’t seem to be a favored theme of Hollywood movies, docudrama, and TV series. These horrors are presented as little more than a minor footnote in history textbooks.  What do graduate students in the West know about Vasily Blokhin, the NKVD executive responsible for the execution of more than 7,000 Polish officers in the spring of 1940? What do Western students  know about  the fate of Ljudevit Jurak (1881–1945) and Eduard Miloslavic (1884–1952), two Croatian forensic experts who studied the mass graves at Katyn and Vinnitsa, hired in 1943 by the German Wehrmacht to examine the bodies of Poles massacred in 1940 by the Soviet commissars?   What do Chinese students, or for that matter Western students, know today about the “Great leap forward” and the “Cultural Revolution” (1966–1976) of Chairman Mao Zedong which nearly destroyed 3,000 years of Chinese history? The dead hand of Marxism and Leninism still extends over the European continent, albeit under the new label of “antifascism.”  Former communist affiliates and their latter-day antifa progeny have now rebaptized themselves into Social Democrats and Liberals. Former Yugoslav Titoists and their descendants in Croatia haven’t disappeared; they operate now under different party names, using more digestible parliamentary paraphernalia such as the “HNS” (Croatian People’s Party) the “IDS” (Istria’s Democratic Assembly), and the “HSS” ( Croatian Peasant Party).  The much vaunted Council of Europe resolution 1481, adopted in 2006 and condemning communist crimes, remains a dead letter, good enough to assuage the guilty consciences of Brussels bureaucrats.

The communist regimes left not only human, economic and ecological devastation. Communist anthropology has distorted the mental makeup of generations to come. Communism had given birth to a species deprived of any moral values, of any sense of personal responsibility, and of any sense of striving for common good. The Russian writer Alexander Zinoviev called this species an “honest liar.” In November 2019, the Belgrade historian Srdjan Cvetkovic visited Zagreb. At a scientific meeting, sponsored by the Croatian Institute of History he confirmed the long-held public secret that 56,000 Serbs had been killed from 1944 to 1946 in Serbia by the victorious Yugoslav Communists. More than 20% of those killed were under the age of 18. The conference, as was to be expected, was ignored by the mainstream media in Croatia, thus reminding us that the authorities in Croatia and her EU watchdog, are the only ones who decide on the political narrative in the mainstream media. What do children learn now in Croatia about the history of the communist crimes against the Croatian people? Nor do they know anything about the largest ethnic cleansing campaign in European history and the destruction of the German minority in the former Yugoslavia during and after World War II. One must not forget that lies and deception were imprinted in the Bolshevik genetic code. Henceforth their offspring consider themselves as the only genuine interpreters of modern history.

The history of Eastern Europe has been mapped out by countless “Naked Islands,” big or small Gulag archipelagos, foibes, and unexplored mass graves. Almost daily the Croat media report on the newly found mass graves  dating back to 1945–46. To this day the ruling class in the West has shown a total lack of personal and legal conscience towards victims of communism. If we give up the search for the truth, we also sign our moral capitulation and we decide to participate in the erasure of our collective memory. It looks, however, that we will have to put up for a much longer time with the communist elephants in our living rooms.